Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Arguments for the existence of God - Coggle Diagram
Arguments for the existence of God
Cosmological
Aquinas
Nothing comes from nothing
The universe exists
Something must have existed before the universe which caused it to exist
This cause must be uncaused
Mackie: describes this as a goods train in which every carriage is pulled by the next, and God is the engine at the front
Argument from motion
Everything is in motion
Movement is caused by movers
There cannot be an infinite regress, so there must be an original unmoved mover
This is God
Motion goes from potentiality to actuality (Aristotle) and you cannot be both at once. There must be a being of pure actuality to begin the motion.
Hume's problem of induction
There could be an infinite regress
Why can't the world be uncaused if God can be
Russell: the universe is a 'brute fact'
Doesn't prove a Christian God
Argument from causation
Some things are caused
Anything that's caused must be caused by something else
There cannot be an infinite regress
There must be an uncaused causer (God)
Argument from contingency
There are contingent beings, but there can't only be contingent beings as this would cause an infinite regress
There must be a necessary being: God
Problem of a temporal God
Flew: if God is only there to set the world in motion, there is no need for a Christian God beyond that moment
Copleston: God is an external cause sustaining the motion
Analogy of the minstrel
Russell: the universe is a 'brute fact'. It simply exists, and we don't need to find a reason for its existence.
Russell: Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.
Hume
Fallacy of composition to say that just because everything has a cause the entire universe has one cause (Russell's mother-son analogy)
Why can there not be infinite regress? This fails Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason
Generally, causes resemble their effects and therefore it doesn't make sense for God to create something so distinct from Him
Why do things have to go from potentiality to actuality? Anything can cause anything
Problem of induction: there is nothing linking cause and effect
Kant
Criticises Aquinas' use of 'necessary'
Something can be necessary in 3 ways
Logical: The contradiction is inconceivable. We can't conceive of a 4-sided triangle but we can imagine a world without God so his doesn't apply to God.
Modal: assumes that God is the greatest possible being, so just collapses into the Ontological argument
Factual: something that is and always was. if God is factually necessary but not logically he might not have existed in any worlds, so this doesn't satisfy the cosmological argument
Aristotle
Argues for the prime mover
Everything is in motion
Everything is set in motion by something else
There cannot be an infinite regress
There must be a first unmoved mover
Teleological
Pioneered by Aquinas, developed by Paley
Paley
Presents an argument from analogy
If we found a watch on a deserted island, we would assume it was designed by something intelligent due to its complexity
We can extend this to biological things like eyes, so we must have an intelligent designer
Behe: Irreducible complexity
The bacterial flagellum is irreducably complex, and couldn't have come about during evolution. It must have been designed
Page: there are thousands of variants of the flagellum, so it isn't actually irreducibly complex
A watch is clearly constructed. Some things in the natural world appear to have no purpose/be flawed eg. appendixes
Paley: even if we don't know how or why something was created, we still know it has a creator
Some things in nature don't have a purpose
Paley: just because we can't see its purpose doesn't mean it doesn't have one
Russell: we can ascribe a purpose to anything, but this makes us the creators, not God
Darwin: evolution/natural selection is how the world came about
Hume
The analogy fails: the universe is so unique that it can only be loosely compared to a watch.
There are many ways the complexity of the universe could come about that aren't God.
Considers why a Christian God rather than polytheism etc
The evils in the world indicate a less-than-perfect God
If human-like intelligence is designed then God's intelligence must be designed, creates an infinite regress
Moral
Kant
We have a sense of moral duty: we 'ought to' act according to our duty
'Ought' implies 'can'
We cannot reach the highest good on earth, as humans aren't powerful enough to ensure that the virtuous will be rewarded
We're all subconsciously aiming towards the highest good
Therefore, there must be an afterlife in which we are rewarded for acting according to 'duty' on earth
This must be facilitated by a being powerful enough to do this: God
Saka: ought doesn't imply can
The universe isn't necessarily fair— how do we know that the good will be rewarded?
Doesn't imply a Christian God
Mill: morals aren't instinctive but can be taught
Freud, Butler, Carveth, evolution all offer psychological explanations for morality
Ontological
Anselm
Proslogion 2
Defines God as 'that of which no greater than can be concieved'
Once we have a concept of God, does He merely exist in the understanding or in reality as well?
If God was only in the understanding, He wouldn't be the greatest being as a greater one would exist in reality. Therefore, God must exist.
Proslogion 3
Assuming that God is the greatest conceivable being, it would not be possible for Him to go out of existence as something which continues to exist would be greater
He could not have come into existence either as something which has always existed would be greater
Everything but God is contingent, but God is necessary
Guanilo: if you have a concept of the greatest possible island, this must exist in reality. It doesn't, because the argument is flawed.
Anselm: islands can only exist contingently— their existence is dependent on other things, and their non-existence is always possible
An island can never posess maximal properties— any quality it has could always have more. Does it have a tasty fruit? It could always have more! God is fundamentally different because his properties are necessarily maximal.
You could also have the greatest possible devil, who is maximally evil. This would create dualism.
Descartes
God is a 'supremely perfect being'
Existence is perfection: a thing which does not exist would by definition not be perfect, as the existing version would be more complete